Third Time Around

Churchill put out another repudiation on the claim made that he “advocated terrorist attacks on the United States.” In one of my former blogs, I made the statement that it was hard not to keep in mind that his article was a part of a larger piece of publication and there lay the possibility of missing the whole of his argument with this portion being taken out of its greater context. His initial response to the criticism seemed to clearly address the underlying issues for his publication and further explained his reasons for writing as he did.

The primary article I had found, along with the class, to be highly insulting. However, as with his response to the criticism, I found this second response to be written with more tact and prescience. He restates his purpose in writing: “I did not advocate such attacks…I pointed out that they were and will continue to be the inevitable result of a U.S. foreign policy that disregards the rule of law and results in massive death and destruction abroad.” This argument, he says, he has not only “consistently advocated” but also thoroughly studied.

There is definitely a difference between the tone in his actual argument in the excerpt and his tone in his approaches to defending that portion that was exploited. His defense is logical and clear. A good deal of his credibility is established through this approach. He lets his audience know that this is an area he has studied intently, and his argument has been established over the years through the information he has steadily drawn. His argument does not come across in that “attacking” tone. Though he does take the opportunity to counter those who have “[broadcasted] their spin” on his argument, he does so in a professional and comprehensive way.